The Supreme Court has issued notices to producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor, in connection with a plea seeking to reopen a long-standing property dispute over land purchased by late actress Sridevi and her family in Chennai. The disputed property spans 2.70 acres.
Supreme Court orders status quo, suggests mediation
According to an IANS report, a bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai took up a petition filed by M.C. Sivakami and her brother, M.C. Natarajan, who have staked a claim to a portion of the disputed property.The court directed both sides to maintain the status quo with regard to the property until the next hearing. It also suggested that the matter be resolved through mediation and proposed that a retired High Court judge oversee the process.The case has been scheduled for December 18, when the court will review the progress of the mediation.
Background: Madras High Court’s April ruling
The Sivakami siblings approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court, on April 20, ruled in favour of the Kapoor family by allowing their revision petition and dismissing the civil suit filed by the siblings.The High Court concluded that the challenge to property transactions dating back to 1988 could not proceed as it was barred by limitation. It also held that the plaintiffs’ claims lacked sufficient legal basis based on the submissions before the court.
What the land dispute involves
The disputed property is located at Survey No. 1/1B in Sholinganallur, Chennai.According to details recorded by the Madras High Court, the petitioners identified themselves as the legal heirs of late M.C. Chandrasekaran and sought division of the property into five equal parts, claiming a one-fifth share for themselves.They also sought to invalidate sale deeds executed on April 19, 1988, in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi, along with subsequent transactions relating to the property.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
Representing the petitioners, their counsel argued that the High Court had examined complex questions, including whether the claimants were legitimate legal heirs and the validity of Chandrasekaran’s alleged second marriage, at a stage when the court was only required to determine whether the plaint should be rejected at the threshold.Representing the Kapoor family, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that the original transaction took place in 1988, while the present suit was filed only in 2025.He further noted that the petitioners had attained adulthood in 1995 and 1999, respectively, and argued that the delay in filing the suit meant that the claim was beyond the permissible limitation period.The Supreme Court also sought clarity on whether Chandrasekaran held a one-fifth share in the property and whether there was any dispute regarding the petitioners being his biological children.
Case’s legal history
The dispute originated with a suit filed before the Additional District Judge in Chengalpattu. The trial court had initially refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the contents of the plaint needed to be examined during the trial rather than at the preliminary stage.The Madras High Court subsequently reversed that decision on April 20, 2026.Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the petitioners’ claim of having discovered the disputed transaction only in 2023 was not supported by the evidence on record. The court concluded that the challenge to the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation and ordered the plaint to be rejected.The High Court also noted that the same plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit in 2007 seeking a one-fifth share in family assets, which had been dismissed at the time.
